Finance

A man passes a Hewlett Packard display at a technology conference
Jim Young | Reuters

Check out the companies making headlines in midday trading.
HP — Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway became the largest shareholder in the computer hardware company, sending shares up 16.4%. Berkshire Hathaway bought nearly 121 million shares, or about an 11% stake worth roughly $4.2 billion based on Wednesday’s closing.

Lamb Weston Holdings — Shares soared 6.2% after the food processing company reported quarterly earnings. Lamb Weston showed profit of 73 cents per share, beating consensus estimates of 44 cents. It reported revenues of $955 million, compared to analyst estimates of $969 million.
Constellation Brands — The stock jumped 4.3% after the producer of beer, wine and spirits reported an earnings beat. Constellation saw earnings of $2.37 per share and revenues of $2.1 billion. Analysts expected earnings of $2.10 per share and revenues of $2.02 billion.
JD.com — News that founder Richard Liu stepped down from the CEO position sent shares down 4%. Liu will remain on as chair. Company President Xu Lei will take over as CEO.
Levi Strauss — Shares fell nearly 5% despite Levi’s better-than-expected quarterly report. The jeans maker posted a quarterly profit of 46 cents per share on revenue of $1.59 billion. Analysts looked for earnings of 42 cents per share on revenue of $1.55 billion. Levi said supply chain constraints hurt sales by roughly $60 million during the latest period.
Costco — The big-box retail chain jumped 3.2%, a day after it reported robust same-store sales in March, which jumped 17.2% in the last five weeks ending April 3.

CDK Global — Shares jumped 11.4% after the provider of automotive retail technology agreed to be acquired by Brookfield Business Partners in an $8.3 billion deal. CDK Global shareholders will get $54.87 per share in cash, implying a 12% premium over Wednesday’s closing price for CDK.
Ford — The automaker dropped 5.2% after Barclays downgraded Ford to equal weight from overweight. The ongoing semiconductor shortage will keep Ford from rebounding after a rough start to 2022, Barclays said in a note to clients.
— CNBC’s Hannah Miao and Jesse Pound contributed reporting.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

WAR! FAMINE! Death! AIDS! This is how Bill Hicks, a revered comedian who died in 1994, aged 32, riffed on the disorienting effect of watching cable news. Homelessness! Recession! Depression! The shocking headlines come at you relentlessly. But look out of the window and everything seems calm. The only sound is the chirping of crickets. You start to wonder, said Hicks: where is all this bad stuff happening?A lot of bad stuff is happening just now, most notably a war in Europe. There is also inflation and growing fears of recession. Government bonds have just had their worst quarter for returns in ages. The Treasury yield-curve has inverted: the gap between yields on ten- and two-year bonds recently turned negative, an early warning of a downturn. The Federal Reserve is growing more hawkish. Yet stocks are surprisingly buoyant. Even after a few days fairly deep in red ink this week, the S&P 500 index of stocks is only 7% below its all-time high. This might look like a foolish stockmarket failing to take its cue from a more realistic bond market. But the truth is more complicated.There are lots of plausible explanations for the resilience of stocks. An evergreen one is that there is no good alternative to owning them. Investors need to put money to work and American stocks are the least-worst option. Bonds are a snare. As long as inflation is expected to exceed interest rates, they are a sure-fire way to lose purchasing power. The yield on ten-year inflation-protected bonds is still negative even after the big repricing in bond markets. The earnings yield on equities is comfortably higher than this real bond yield. And stocks offer some protection against inflation in as much as corporate revenues are indexed to rising consumer prices.In any event, the risk of recession in America is not immediate. The Fed has barely started to tighten monetary policy. Even a rapid series of interest-rate increases will take time to slow the economy. The negative spread between ten- and two-year yields is an early-warning signal, not a blaring alarm. On average, recession hits more than a year after this part of the yield curve inverts. In the meantime, the equity market typically goes up. Looked at in this light, the message to take is to hold stocks for now.Underlying all these rationalisations is a sense that equity investors do not quite believe the Fed will follow through on all the interest-rate increases the bond market is pricing in. (Perhaps that is why the Fed’s rate-setters are sounding more and more hawkish in public.) One strain of this belief gives the Fed too much credit: it says it can easily conquer inflation without crashing the economy. Another strain gives it too little credit: this school doubts the Fed’s stomach to engineer a recession for the sake of price stability. If the result of such qualms is that inflation lingers above the Fed’s 2% target for longer, then so be it. That would be a bigger problem for bond returns than for equities.It is possible to pick holes in all these arguments. But it is not quite right to conclude that the stockmarket has failed to adjust to new and harsher realities. The best-performing industries in the S&P 500 in the first quarter were those likely to be resilient to stagflation: energy, utilities and consumer staples. Meanwhile, technology stocks—flag-bearers of the “secular stagnation” era of low inflation and low interest rates—have had a brutal few months. The violence of this sector rotation away from tech has caused remarkably few ripples in the overall stockmarket. Nevertheless, equity investors were mindful of the world outside their window. The Bank of America’s global fund-manager survey suggests that investors reduced the weighting of technology stocks in their portfolios as far back as November, notes Kevin Russell of UBS O’Connor, the hedge-fund unit of the Swiss asset manager. The stockmarket has been ahead of the bond market on the risks of inflation, not behind it, he argues.A big question is how far all financial markets are running behind the reality of inflation. The phase during which asset prices adjust to the prospects of tighter Fed policy does not seem to have quite run its course. And the pattern of the past two years is for one market phase to give way quickly to another. Everything is moving faster these days. But the relentlessness of scary financial headlines is not a confection of the 24-hour news cycle. Instead it is a reflection of a super-charged business cycle, which looks set—much like Bill Hicks—to burn brightly and die young.For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter.This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Double-glazed” More

IVY ZELMAN knows a thing or two about the American housing market. She was rare among mainstream analysts in warning of trouble in 2005, a year before the bubble started to burst. In 2012, when many investors were reluctant to get back into property, she declared the sector had hit rock-bottom; prices have more than doubled since then. So it is worth paying attention to her latest pronouncements. “It’s euphoric right now,” she says. “There are definite signs of excess.”But Ms Zelman, who has gone from investment banks to running an analysis firm, also knows the current rally is different from past ones, which suggests the downside may be less severe. Start with the evidence of potential danger. Prices have surged in America since early in the pandemic, much as they have throughout the rich world. In recent months they have risen by nearly 20% year on year, eclipsing their heady pace before the global financial crisis of 2007-09.Far from deterring buyers, the rally has only fuelled FOMO—a fear of missing out. The typical home sold in March was on the market for just 38 days, down from a pre-pandemic norm of 67 for that time of year, according to Realtor.com, a listings website (see chart). And supply seems constrained. At the end of 2021 America had 726,000 vacant homes for sale; in the two decades before the pandemic that had never fallen below 1m.One critical variable is now changing, and rapidly at that, owing to the monetary-policy decisions of the Federal Reserve. Although the Fed has raised short-term interest rates by only a quarter of a percentage point so far this year, mortgage rates have soared by more than 1.5 points as investors price in more tightening to come. Normally, such a steep increase would cool the housing market, making monthly payments increasingly unaffordable.Yet thus far the red-hot market has remained resistant to rising mortgage rates. Partly that is because so many Americans took advantage of the extremely low rates available during the pandemic to take out new financing. About 70% of homeowners now have mortgages with rates of less than 4%, according to Ms Zelman. In 2018 just about 40% enjoyed such low borrowing costs. Another explanation is the wealth, at least on paper, that Americans have accumulated thanks to rising asset prices over the past two years. About a quarter of existing-home sales are all-cash transactions now, compared with a fifth before the pandemic, according to the National Association of Realtors.Resistant to rising rates, though, does not mean impervious. At some point high borrowing costs will crimp demand. Moreover, the fundamentals underpinning the property rally—the limited supply of new homes—may prove to be, in part, an artefact of the pandemic. Nearly 1.6m homes are under construction nationwide, the most since the early 1970s. The problem is that the housing sector is, like other parts of the economy, suffering from labour shortages and gummed-up supply chains. It is taking longer than normal to complete construction. A resolution of these constraints could move America from a property shortage to a glut.Ms Zelman is far from alone this time in her warnings. On March 29th a group of researchers with the Dallas Fed noted that their “exuberance indicator”, a gauge to detect housing bubbles, was flashing red. “Our evidence points to abnormal US housing-market behaviour for the first time since the boom of the early 2000s,” they wrote. Few expect a repeat of the collapse that followed that boom. Homeowners have healthier balance-sheets than they did 15 years ago, and borrowing standards are stricter. Nevertheless, the housing market today provides just another illustration of the rocky path that the Fed must navigate, with rampant inflation on one side and a bust on the other. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter.This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “FOMO froth” More

IN MAY 1919 John Dewey, an American philosopher, embarked on a lecture tour of China. “We are going to see more of the dangerous daring side of life here,” he predicted. His celebration of learning by doing and social experimentation was enthusiastically received by the country’s daring reformers and dangerous revolutionaries. At least one of his lectures was attended by a young schoolteacher called Mao Zedong. “Everything through experimentation,” Dewey declared on his tour. Chairman Mao would later repeat the line as China’s ruler.In the scattered bases occupied by China’s communists before 1949, experimentation was unavoidable, points out Sebastian Heilmann in his book, “Red Swan: How Unorthodox Policymaking Facilitated China’s Rise”. The communists lacked the manpower or administrative reach to impose uniform policies. Instead they introduced new measures, such as land reform, in model villages or “experimental points”, before spreading them across the “surface” of their territory. The aim was to learn by doing, without doing anything uncontainably calamitous. These “model experiences”, Mao wrote, were “much closer to reality and richer than the decisions and directives issued by our leadership organs”.A similar “point-to-surface” approach was embraced by China’s leaders after Mao. Indeed, the central government has initiated over 630 such experiments since 1980, according to a recent paper by Shaoda Wang of the University of Chicago and David Yang of Harvard University. It has experimented with carbon trading, fisheries insurance, business licensing and fiscal devolution. A report last month by China’s planning agency referred to pilot schemes covering everything from cross-border e-commerce and housing provident funds to green electricity and recyclable packaging.These trials are not mere formalities. The results can go either way. About 46% of experimental policies are never rolled out nationwide, according to Messrs Wang and Yang. An unsuccessful trial can nonetheless yield useful lessons for future reforms. Failure, as Mao once put it, is the mother of success: “a fall into the pit” can yield “a gain in your wit”.China has indeed gained a lot from using this method. It is a “huge improvement” on a “counterfactual world” in which all central policies are implemented without any experimentation, Mr Wang argues. The point-to-surface technique is one reason why communist China has survived and advanced even as other socialist regimes have stagnated or collapsed, according to Mr Heilmann. Such unexpected outcomes are sometimes described as “black swans”. In China’s case, he argues, red seems the more appropriate colour.This long and celebrated history notwithstanding, China is surprisingly bad at policy experiments. Its trials are not as clean as they could be, skewing the conclusions its leaders draw. One problem is their location. According to China’s planning agency, “sites should be fairly representative.” But contrary to this sound advice, 80% of experiments since the 1980s have taken place in localities that are richer than average, according to Messrs Wang and Yang. Another bias is fiscal. When local authorities experiment with an area of policy, such as education or agriculture, they tend to spend 5% more money on that area than otherwise similar counties that are not taking part in the experiment.Experiments can also be skewed by less measurable factors. Some local officials, for example, simply put more effort into these pilot exercises than others. This is particularly true of ambitious young cadres who have more scope for promotion, because they are still far from retirement age. To measure this extra effort, Messrs Wang and Yang devise an ingenious proxy. They compare the language employed by local governments in describing the experiment. Leaders with more room for promotion differentiate their language from the boilerplate used by their upwardly immobile counterparts elsewhere.Extra effort, more spending and atypical prosperity can all skew the results of a policy experiment. Some of these biases may be well known to seasoned policymakers in Beijing. But if so, national leaders do not act as if they are aware of them. They tend to favour successful trials regardless of the true source of that success. The more prosperous an experimental site, the better the chance the policy will be adopted nationwide. Such backing is also more likely if the host county just happens to enjoy a fiscal windfall during the trial period, say because a fortuitous cut in interest rates raises land values. The central government does not seem to disentangle the merits of an innovative policy from the idiosyncrasies of the places that pilot it.A duck dressed up as a swanThis has national consequences. When new policies are spread across the surface of the country, the localities that most closely resemble the experimental “points” benefit the most, judged by their subsequent economic growth. Since experimental sites tend to be richer than average, the policies that emerge from experimentation may “systematically favour” the richer parts of China, Messrs Wang and Yang argue. That is not an outcome that Mao or Dewey would have welcomed: inequity through experimentation.How can China reform this engine of reform, moving its experiments closer to reality? Another striking calculation by the researchers suggests one useful place to start. They point out that local officials are 22% more likely to be promoted if they take part in a successful experiment. To improve this technique, therefore, China’s leaders will have to fix the politics that attend it. In recent years, under Xi Jinping, experimentation has become “forced and feigned”, according to Mr Heilmann. Local administrators enjoy little “leeway and they are fearful of making policy and ideological mistakes along the way”. There will be no gain in wit if local policymakers fear a fall into the pit. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter.This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Red swan over China” More

STERLING WAS once the world’s dominant currency. As the American dollar took its crown, it became second-tier but remained elite, and for decades was content with its lot. Yet lately the pound’s shine seems to have dulled again—so much so, says Kamal Sharma of Bank of America, that it has been “acting [like] emerging-market (EM) currencies”.It is not that the pound has suddenly turned into the Turkish lira or the Argentine peso. It remains part of the G5 group of heavily traded currencies, alongside the dollar, the euro, the Japanese yen and the Swiss franc. Yet it has proved more vulnerable to crises than the others.A “flash crash” in October 2016 took its value from $1.26 to $1.14 in less than a minute. As covid-induced panic gripped markets in March 2020, it dropped by 12% against the dollar in the space of a fortnight (the euro fell by just 6%). When British petrol pumps ran dry last September, it plunged again and traders’ expectations of its future volatility soared. The Bank of England’s decision to raise interest rates earlier than most has since held it steadier, but some commentators remain adamant that the pound has not just decoupled from the currencies of other developed economies, but also joined the ranks of EM ones.Such claims are usually made with the speaker’s tongue planted firmly in their cheek. EM currencies’ delightful attributes include capital controls (the Chinese yuan), hyperinflation (the Argentine peso) and “unorthodox” monetary policies (the Turkish lira). Liquidity crunches during market routs can subject sterling to harsh devaluations, explaining why it is not a haven like the dollar or the Swiss franc. But in normal times, call up a bank’s foreign-exchange (FX) trading desk asking to sell half a billion pounds and they won’t struggle to do so. That they might for an EM currency is the category’s distinguishing feature.In fact, sterling is notable for the opposite: it plays an oddly outsize role in FX markets. Britain accounts for 3% of the world’s GDP. Yet over the past 20 years its currency has consistently been involved in over a tenth of FX trades.So why do traders like sterling, if it is so brittle? You might trade a foreign currency if you want to buy goods or services from the country that issues it. Or you might sell something in exchange for it and want to convert the proceeds back to your currency. Neither explains sterling’s popularity: in 2019 Britain accounted for 3.8% of global goods imports and 2.6% of exports. Nor is it prominent in central-bank holdings (it makes up less than 5% of global reserves). The dollar dominates global payments, many governments borrow in it and some markets—commodities—are priced in it. The pound does none of these jobs.In fact it is a means to less grand aims: speculation and cross-border investment. People trade sterling to take a punt on its value, or because they are buying or selling British assets. In this it has more in common with another rich-world currency. Like sterling, the Australian dollar is issued by an open, developed economy that relies heavily on trade. Punters use both to bet on trends that are bigger than their issuers’ economic footprint: sterling is a proxy for risk appetite; the Aussie dollar for commodity prices. And they loom larger in FX markets than either their economies’ heft or trade volumes warrant. Australia makes up less than 2% of world GDP, yet its dollar is present in 6.8% of FX trades.Five years after the Brexit vote, there is little sign of the Global Britain that voters were promised, and declaring sterling an EM currency suits the country’s fondness for declinism. But to understand the role of the pound today, look Down Under. ■For more expert analysis of the biggest stories in economics, business and markets, sign up to Money Talks, our weekly newsletter.This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “Not so sterling” More

OUTSIDE INDIA, the union of two entities that share a banal acronym in their name might seem an exercise in bureacracy. But in the case of the acquisition of Housing Development Finance Corporation (HDFC) by HDFC Bank, announced on April 4th, that appearance would be deceptive. The size of the deal, at $60bn, is by far the biggest in India—triple the value of the next largest acquisition (Walmart’s purchase of Flipkart for $17bn in 2018). It is also the fourth-biggest banking transaction in the world ever, according to Refinitiv, a data provider. The resulting entity is estimated to have a market capitalisation of as much as $185bn, which would make it one of the world’s largest banks, after JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America and three Chinese lenders—and well above Citigroup, HSBC and Standard Chartered, the three global banks that once stood at the pinnacle of Indian private-sector finance.As important as the scale of the deal is what it says about the evolution of finance in India. Both institutions are among the most successful private-sector financial firms in a country where state-owned banks still loom large (local lenders were nationalised by Indira Gandhi, then India’s prime minister, in 1969). HDFC was founded in 1977 to provide basic housing finance. In the ensuing 45 years it has financed the purchase of 9m homes.As restrictions on private-sector enterprise were gradually eased, HDFC’s chairman, Deepak Parekh, adeptly launched other financial institutions. Insurance came in 2000, and asset management in 1999. But none was as important as HDFC Bank, which was created in 1994 when private banking licences began to be granted. HDFC kept a 26% stake in the new entity and required the bank to work through it when providing mortgages.For years there were advantages in maintaining separate institutions. Banks had access to cheap funding through deposits, but paid for the privilege through onerous capital requirements and rules that made them devote 40% of credit to “priority” areas, such as farming. Non-bank finance firms were easier to create—thousands sprang up—and faced less-stringent lending or capital requirements, but lacked cheap overnight deposits.It proved a messy, even dangerous development, as many went on a lending and borrowing binge. In 2018-19 several prominent non-banks, including IL&FS and two housing-finance firms, collapsed. There were fears of more failures to come, and funding dried up for many finance companies. That in turn led to a credit crunch.Since then, regulatory changes have been quietly instituted, making life harder for the non-banks. The complex capital requirements imposed on them have been raised, for instance, to bring them largely in line with banks. That has made the operating restraints on finance companies somewhat bank-like, but without the benefits of cheap deposits. Jefferies, an investment bank, estimates HDFC pays 6% for its funding, compared with 3.7% for HDFC Bank. The spread for other finance companies is probably wider.With the merger, that distinction will disappear, providing a meaningful cost saving and competitive advantage. Meanwhile, HDFC Bank, which has a sprawling network of 6,500 branches, ten times as many as its housing-finance cousin, will be able to offer mortgages to its customers directly—something that might have doubled its size had it been able to do so all along, said Sashidhar Jagdishan, the bank’s chief executive, on April 4th. Investors were unsurprisingly giddy at the prospect, with the share prices of both firms rising sharply. The mood in Mumbai’s stately Taj Hotel, where the merger was announced, was equally ebullient, as the city’s leading dealmakers speculated about what other changes might, once again, follow in HDFC’s wake. ■This article appeared in the Finance & economics section of the print edition under the headline “A house united” More

Check out the companies making headlines before the bell:
Conagra (CAG) – The food producer’s stock tumbled 5.5% in the premarket after issuing a weaker-than-expected forecast for the fiscal year ending in May. Conagra’s results are being hit by higher transportation and raw materials costs.

Levi Strauss (LEVI) – Levi Strauss beat estimates by 4 cents with an adjusted quarterly profit of 46 cents per share, and the apparel maker’s revenue also topped Wall Street forecasts. The company saw strong demand for its jeans, tops and jackets while successfully raising prices and cutting down promotions. Levi Strauss rose 3% in premarket trading.
HP Inc. (HPQ) – HP is surging 15.2% in premarket trading following news that Warren Buffett’s Berkshire Hathaway took an 11.4% stake in the maker of personal computers and printers.
Rite Aid (RAD) – The stock tumbled 18.3% in premarket action after Deutsche Bank downgraded the drugstore operator to “sell” from “hold.” Deutsche Bank said Covid hastened the decline of the retail pharmacy segment, and there’s a possibility that Rite Aid may not be able to generate enough earnings to continue as an operating company.
Wayfair (W) – Wayfair slid 4.1% in the premarket after Wells Fargo downgraded the stock to “underweight” from “equal weight.” Wells Fargo said the high-end furniture retailer will be hurt by waning demand, overly optimistic consensus estimates and other headwinds.
Rent the Runway (RENT) – Rent the Runway stock jumped 3.9% in the premarket after the fashion rental company announced a price hike for its subscribers.

CDK Global (CDK) – The provider of automotive retail technology agreed to be bought by Brookfield Business Partners for $54.87 per share in cash. The price represents a 12% premium over CDK’s Wednesday closing price.
SoFi Technologies (SOFI) – The online personal finance company’s shares slid 5.1% in the premarket after cutting its full-year outlook. The cut follows the White House announcing a student loan payment moratorium will be extended.
JD.com (JD) – JD.com announced that founder Richard Liu has left the chief executive officer position and President Xu Lei will take over as the Chinese e-commerce company’s CEO. Liu will remain as chairman. JD.com fell 1.1% in the premarket.
Teladoc Health (TDOC) – The provider of virtual doctor visits saw its stock gain 1.5% in premarket action after Guggenheim initiated coverage with a “buy” rating. Guggenheim said health care access is moving more toward digital interactions and that Teladoc has a broader service portfolio than other providers.

WATCH LIVEWATCH IN THE APP More

Student Olivia Raymond participates in a personal finance course in her middle school class in West Orange, New Jersey, in February 2020.

Pursuing financial literacy is something that should continue beyond traditional school years, according to several state governors.
“We think it’s a lifelong experience,” New Jersey Gov. Phil Murphy told CNBC’s Sharon Epperson during Wednesday’s event, Invest in You: The Governors Strategy Session on Financial Education.

Gov. Steve Sisolak of Nevada agrees about the importance of financial literacy.
“It’s a skill that’s necessary for your entire life,” he said. “We have to approach it more long-term in that regard.”

State of personal finance education
There are no federal guidelines for personal finance education in schools, which means it’s up to individual states to set their own rules. And there are 23 states that mandate a personal finance course for students, according to the 2022 Survey of the States from the Council for Economic Education.
In New Jersey, personal finance education is taught in middle school, and classes in financial, economic business and entrepreneurial business literacy are required to graduate.
“You need to get to folks while they’re young, and that’s the animating reason behind getting financial literacy education into our middle school curriculum,” said Murphy, a Democrat.

More from Invest in You:Want a fun way to teach your kids about money? Try these gamesInflation fears force Americans to rethink financial choicesHere’s what consumers plan to cut back on if prices continue to surge
Nevada students are taught about personal finance topics as a part of social studies class, generally starting in grade three and going through high school. In Mississippi, beginning this year, a college and career readiness class that includes personal financial education is required for high school graduation.
“Each state has to make their own decision and their own priorities as to what classes are most appropriate for their young people,” said Mississippi Gov. Tate Reeves, a Republican. “But I am absolutely convinced that a fundamental understanding of finances is incredibly important to one’s ability to be successful in life.”
That also means that states can change their guidelines as they see fit.
“A mandatory class may be the next step we go to,” said Sisolak, a Democrat. He added that it’s important to have such curriculum in schools because many students can’t get financial education at home from their parents, who may also fall short on financial literacy.
Beyond school
The state governors agree that one of the reasons it’s important to have personal finance curriculum in schools is because many students’ parents can’t teach them about financial literacy at home or simply aren’t talking about money enough.
New Jersey is also offering residents access to more personal financial education outside of school. Murphy announced today, during the CNBC event, that the state has launched NJ FinLit, a financial wellness platform.
“Financial literacy is incredibly important for Americans to secure their personal financial footing, to be better positioned to provide for their families and set themselves up for future success,” Murphy said.
The platform was developed by Enrich and is powered by San Diego-based financial education company iGrad. It includes personal finance courses on several topics, including budgeting, saving, retirement, student loans and has real-time budget tools, as well. It is free for all adult New Jersey residents.

States have also made sure that educators have resources for professional development to keep up with the ever-changing financial environment and field questions about things such as meme stocks and cryptocurrencies.
Mississippi offers a master teacher in personal finance program and coaching.
“The best way for a kid to get a quality education is to have a quality teacher,” Reeves said. “You have to continuously have continuing education for personal finance teachers just like you do for English, math or any other subjects.”
What’s next
Of course, each state has areas in which its could improve their personal finance education offerings for students, training for teachers and resources for adult constituents. And each state will likely come up with individual solutions and offerings for their residents going forward.
Many states are moving forward with legislation mandating personal finance education for their students. There are currently 54 personal finance education bills pending in 26 states, according to Next Gen Personal Finance’s bill tracker.  More